THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 


PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 


CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 


NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 


convenes the 


WORKING GROUP MEETING 


ADVISORY BOARD ON 


RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 


BLOCKSON CHEMICAL
 

The verbatim transcript of the Working 


Group Meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and 


Worker Health held telephonically on August 28, 


2007. 


STEVEN RAY GREEN AND ASSOCIATES 

NATIONALLY CERTIFIED COURT REPORTING 

404/733-6070 
2 

 6 

C O N T E N T S
 

August 28, 2007 


WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS 


DR. LEWIS WADE, DFO 


INTRODUCTION BY CHAIR 12 


THORIUM ISSUE 12 


THREE QUESTIONS FOR WORKERS’ MEETING 70 


REVIEW OF ACTION ITEMS 89 


SOLUBILITY ISSUES 94 


COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 110 

3 

TRANSCRIPT LEGEND
 

The following transcript contains quoted material. Such 


material is reproduced as read or spoken. 


In the following transcript: a dash (--) indicates 


an unintentional or purposeful interruption of a 


sentence. An ellipsis (. . .) indicates halting speech 


or an unfinished sentence in dialogue or omission(s) of 


word(s) when reading written material. 


-- (sic) denotes an incorrect usage or pronunciation 


of a word which is transcribed in its original form as 


reported. 


-- (phonetically) indicates a phonetic spelling of 


the word if no confirmation of the correct spelling is 


available. 


-- "uh-huh" represents an affirmative response, and 


"uh-uh" represents a negative response. 


-- "*" denotes a spelling based on phonetics, 


without reference available. 


-- (inaudible)/ (unintelligible) signifies speaker 


failure, usually failure to use a microphone. 

 

 

4

1 

2 

3 

4 

P A R T I C I P A N T S 


(By Group, in Alphabetical Order) 


BOARD MEMBERS
 

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
 

WADE, Lewis, Ph.D. 


Senior Science Advisor 


National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 


Washington, DC 


MEMBERSHIP
 

GIBSON, Michael H. 


President 


Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Union 


Local 5-4200 


Miamisburg, Ohio 


MELIUS, James Malcom, M.D., Ph.D. 


Director 


New York State Laborers' Health and Safety Trust Fund 


Albany, New York 


MUNN, Wanda I. 


Senior Nuclear Engineer (Retired) 


Richland, Washington 


ROESSLER, Genevieve S., Ph.D. 


Professor Emeritus 


University of Florida 


Elysian, Minnesota 

5 

IDENTIFIED PARTICIPANTS
 

BRANCHE, CHRISTINE, NIOSH 


BROEHM, JASON, CDC 


BURGOS, ZAIDA, NIOSH 


ELLIOTT, LARRY, NIOSH 


HOWELL, EMILY, HHS 


KOTSCH, JEFF, DOL 


MAKHIJANI, ARJUN, SC&A 


MAURO, JOHN, SC&A 


NETON, JIM, NIOSH 


THURBER, BILL, SC&A 


TOMES, TOM, NIOSH 

 

6 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

P R O C E E D I N G S


 (10:00 a.m.) 

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS
 

DR. LEWIS WADE, DFO


 DR. WADE: Hello out there. This is the 


work group conference room. Is there anyone 


with us on the telephone? 


UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER (by Telephone): Yes. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, thank you. As long as we 


know it’s working, we’ll start with our formal 


introductions. This is Lew Wade, and I have 


the privilege of serving as the Designated 


Federal Official for the Advisory Board. And 


this is a meeting of the work group of the 


Advisory Board. This is the work group on 


Blockson Chemical SEC, Special Exposure 


Cohort. That work group is chaired by Wanda 


Munn, members Roessler, Melius and Gibson. 


Munn, Roessler and Melius are in the room with 


us. 


Is Mike Gibson on the phone? 


 (no response) 


 DR. WADE: Mike, are you with us? Mike 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

7 

Gibson? 


 (no response) 


 DR. WADE: That doesn’t limit our ability to 


proceed. What I would ask, are there any 


other Board members on the phone? Any other 


Board members not part of the work group that 


are on the telephone? 


 (no response) 


 DR. WADE: Other Board members? 


 (no response) 


 DR. WADE: Okay, we don’t have a quorum of 


the Board, which is important. If we did, 


we’d have to take steps to remedy that. So we 


can proceed. 


What I’d like to do is go around the 


table here and have each introduce. And for 


the participants of the NIOSH/ORAU team or the 


SC&A team, I’d also like to, you to identify 


whether you have any conflicts relative to the 


Blockson site. Board members can do that as 


well. 


I have two special introductions to 


make before we begin, and that is I have Dr. 


Christine Branche with me. As I mentioned 


previously, Dr. Branche will be working with 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

8 

me, understudying me, and eventually the plan 


is that she’ll take my role at some time in 


the future. And then on my right I’ll let you 


say your name so I don’t mispronounce it. 


MS. BURGOS: Zaida, Zaida Burgos. 


 DR. WADE: Zaida Burgos, who will be taking 


on LaShawn’s responsibilities and, in fact, an 


expanded role in serving the Board. And we 


have wonderful expectations of the service 


Zaida will be able to bring to the Board. So 


with those as early introductions, again, I’m 


Lew Wade. I serve the Board and work for 


NIOSH. 


MR. ELLIOTT: Larry Elliott, I’m the 


Director of NIOSH’s Office of Compensation 


Analysis and Support. And I have no conflicts 


regarding Blockson Chemical. 


DR. ROESSLER: Gen Roessler, member of the 


Board. 


 MR. THURBER: Bill Thurber from SC&A, I have 


no conflicts regarding Blockson. 


DR. NETON: Jim Neton from NIOSH, no 

conflicts. 

MR. TOMES: Tom Tomes from NIOSH, I have no 

conflicts with Blockson. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

9 

MS. MUNN: Wanda Munn, Board and chair of 


this working group, no conflicts. 


 DR. WADE: John, we’re doing introductions. 


MS. MUNN: John is back. 


DR. MAURO: John Mauro, SC&A, no conflicts. 


 DR. WADE: Now Dr. Melius has stepped out 


for a moment. I don’t see him. He’s a Board 


member, a member of this working group and has 


no conflicts at Blockson. 


Let me go out onto the telephone and 


ask if there are other members of the 


NIOSH/ORAU team who are on the telephone to 


identify themselves. 


 (no response) 


 DR. WADE: Jim, are you expecting anyone 


else to be? 


DR. NETON: No. 


 DR. WADE: Any other members of the SC&A 


team on the telephone? 


 (no response) 


 DR. WADE: John, are you expecting any? 


DR. MAURO: No. 


 DR. WADE: What about other federal 


employees who are on the call by virtue of 


their federal employment? Other feds that are 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

10 

working today. 


MR. KOTSCH (by Telephone): Jeff Kotsch, 


Department of Labor. 


 DR. WADE: Welcome. 


MR. BROEHM (by Telephone): And this is 


Jason Broehm in the CDC Washington office. I 


just joined the call. 


 DR. WADE: Welcome, Jason. 


Other feds? 


 (no response) 


 DR. WADE: What about members of Congress, 


their staff or representatives? 


 (no response) 


 DR. WADE: Are there any workers or worker 


representatives on the call? Petitioners? 


Workers? 


 (no response) 


UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER (by Telephone): Yes. 


 DR. WADE: Would you like to identify 


yourself? 


UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER (by Telephone): No. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. 


Is there anyone else on the call who 


would like to identify themself? 


Okay, Wanda. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

11 

One brief caution about telephone 


etiquette, although we have a very small group 


today. Remember that for this group to be 


able to participate fully with those on the 


phone, it’s important that you observe some 


rules, those of you on the telephone. If 


you’re speaking, speak into a handset and 


don’t use a speaker phone. 


If you’re not speaking, mute the 


instrument that you’re dealing with so we 


don’t hear background noise, and be 


particularly mindful of background noise at 


your location. Sometimes people will put the 


phone on hold and we get Muzak, and that’s 


very distracting for us. The older of us 


appreciate it. It puts us to sleep and 


sometimes those naps are helpful. 


We do have Dr. Melius. No, we don’t 


have Dr. Melius with us. Now we have Emily. 


Introduce please. 


MS. HOWELL: Emily Howell, HHS. 


 DR. WADE: Wanda, you can begin. 


MS. MUNN: As a first issue, are there any 


additions or revisions to the agenda which I 


forwarded to each of you by e-mail earlier 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

12 

this week? 


 (no response) 


 DR. WADE: Let me see if I can secure 

Melius. 

INTRODUCTION BY CHAIR 

MS. MUNN: If not, then we’ll proceed to 

address the limited number of issues that are 


before us. Originally, our contractor had 


brought to us six specific findings of their 


review of our TBD and two secondary issues. 


In each case those had been resolved 


with only two remaining outstanding issues. 


The primary one revolves around the thorium 


issue, what transpires with the raffinate. 


How much thorium does and does not stay with 


the uranium as it goes through the process at 


the Blockson Chemical Company. 


If that issue is adequately resolved, 


then the other minor outstanding issues will 


fall into place because they are all 


intimately connected to what happens to the 


thorium. 


THORIUM ISSUE
 

I propose to begin this discussion by 


asking NIOSH to comment on the report that was 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

13 

given to us by Dr. Elzerman. That’s Elzerman, 


isn’t it? An R. And the response to Dr. 


Mauro’s e-mail memo of the 20th . I don’t know 


which of you gentlemen wants to address that 


issue first. 


DR. NETON: Well, if I might, I might 


suggest it would be better if SC&A would 


provide their commentary on the fate of the 


Thorium-230, and then we could take it up from 


there. 


MS. MUNN: I would appreciate that. I would 


also appreciate having on the record a little 


bit of background with respect to how the 


individuals were chosen to give us the report 


on the chemistry. I was a little surprised 


when I read that report because it was not 


what I had anticipated coming out of the 


Blockson meetings with the workers. 


I had thought that what we were doing 


was looking for some very specific responses 


from chemical experts who could tell us with 


some degree of authority what could be 


expected. I found more of a review of the 


literature and not nearly as much specificity 


as I had expected out of that report. I was 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 -- 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

14 

also a little surprised that our contractor’s 


report was cited as one of the authorities for 


their information. 


So with that having been said, any 


information that anyone can give me with 


respect to the selection of these individuals, 


whether the charge that was given to them was 


more extensive than was actually given in the 


report which we got back -- please. 


DR. NETON: Maybe Tom can speak more to the 


 DR. WADE: Before we begin, Mike Gibson is 


now with us. 


Mike, you have no conflict with regard 


to Blockson. Is that correct? 


MR. GIBSON (by Telephone): Right. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, thank you. 


MR. TOMES: Yes, our contractor, ORAU, had, 


George Fargo, was given the task of looking at 


this issue for us. And we, through 


conversations we’ve had with him, we thought 


that it would be appropriate to have a expert 


in the field look at the Blockson chemistry, 


thorium specifically. And there was a few 


individuals identified. One of the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

15 

individuals that was identified who has 


published a number of papers was not available 


and could not meet our schedule we were 


looking for. And Dr. Elzerman was one of the 


people who was recommended, and he’s also 


involved (unintelligible) industry. And he 


was available and could meet our schedule 


roughly that we were looking for. Not as fast 


as we would have liked to have it, but he 


could do the work. And that is the reason 


that he was selected because he had experience 


in the field, and he had credentials where he 


published and studied the industries. 


As far as the task he was given, his 


report is pretty much, and I won’t say it’s 


verbatim, but it’s pretty much identical to 


the task he was given in the statement of work 


from ORAU. He was simply asked to look at the 


uranium. What could have (unintelligible) 


with the uranium. It was identified as an 


issue by SC&A in the review. 


And he also was asked to strictly look 


at thorium in Building 55 and what behavior 


that may have been in the chemistry. And part 


of that I think was being able to take many 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

16 

references that are out there that’s to 


evaluate the past and have an expert opinion 


to interpret all those references. And that 


was one of the things that we wanted to see in 


that report. And that is pretty much what he 


gives. 


MS. MUNN: It is, yes. 


John? 


DR. MAURO: Yes. 


DR. MAKHIJANI (by Telephone): John, before 


you start. This is Arjun. I just joined a 


minute or so. 


DR. MAURO: Okay, Arjun. 


I’ll sort of set the stage a bit of 


what we did, and probably I’d like to turn it 


over to Bill who really was, Bill Thurber, who 


you folks may have just met, who led the 


effort. 


The bottom line is we had, when the 


thorium issue emerged and we originally 


identified it, there’s some history here. 


There are a series of documents. We don’t 


have to go all the way back. 


MS. MUNN: No, no, we don’t. 


DR. MAURO: But in the end, in the end where 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

17 

we merged was that NIOSH in their most recent 


version of their site profile addressed our 


concerns regarding Thorium-230 by saying that, 


well, as you process the uranium, the thorium 


goes with the uranium, and in the end there’s 


this big 55 gallon drum filled with uranium 


and all the Thorium-230 is sitting there also. 


And we felt that that was certainly 


could be a very reliable, genuine claimant-


favorable approach except for one possibility. 


And that is if for some reason along the way 


when you start with the original ore, and you 


go through all the chemistry, and at the back 


end of the process you come out of this 55 


gallon drum yellowcake, is it possible that 


somewhere along the line the nature of the 


chemistry was such that the Thorium-230 would 


part ways from the uranium. 


And if it does, does it part ways in a 


way that could actually have higher 


concentrations in terms of curies per gram 


than it would in the 55 gallon drum? Because 


if it could, and it could become airborne, 


then in theory that’s a scenario where a 


worker who might be handling that waste 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

18 

stream, that raffinate, whatever it is, could, 


in theory, experience higher exposures to 


Thorium-230 airborne than the worker who was 


handling the can of uranium. And we didn’t 


have an answer to that. 


So what we did is we had two 


individuals with our organization. One is Dr. 


Bill Richardson, coincidental name, who is a 


professor at Auburn University, inorganic 


chemist, and independent of that, Janet 


Schramke, who is also a geochemist, 


independently looked at it. 


And it turns out that the nature of 


the problem has to do with, you know, you 


start off with the ore, and you go through 


these steps where, in effect, you’re changing 


the pH, and you’re causing various materials 


to precipitate out, some materials to stay in 


solution, and there’s an ongoing process of 


dissolution and re-precipitation. So that in 


the end you get as pure a product of uranium 


as you can. 


Now along this sequence of events, and 


I’m going to ask Bill to go into it a little 


bit, the question that was raised, really more 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

19 

of a question was a concern that in our 


opinion it did not appear to be self-evident 


that the thorium will, in fact, go all the way 


through this process and end up in the 55 


gallon drum. And there are particular nodes 


in the process where the nature of the 


chemistry was such that it could have parted 


ways. 


Now we’re not saying that if that 


happened, in fact, our feelings are it 


probably did part ways, but whether or not 


that resulted in an outcome that had a greater 


potential for a thorium exposure than the one 


that was used, we don’t know. And I guess the 


next step would be, I guess, I would ask -- by 


the way, in the process we were able sort of 


like the eleventh hour to -- I don’t know if 


everyone got a copy of this memo that I sent 


Wanda. I’m not sure what the distribution was 


-- where we reviewed Dr. Elzerman’s report. 


And the bottom line as best I can tell, Dr. 


Elzerman was asked by NIOSH to take a look at 


this very same question. It reads to me that 


he came out more or less in the same place we 


did. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

20 

DR. NETON: Not exactly. 


DR. MAURO: Not exactly, and it’s important 


that we understand that difference in there. 


But it was sort of in the same theme. It 


wasn’t that clean cut. That’s where we come 


out. 


Now with that as an introduction what 


we can do if you like, I made copies of a flow 


diagram that many of you may have seen before 


in some of the documents. I made 20 copies. 


And Bill could explain the places along the 


flow diagram where the uranium and the thorium 


may have parted ways, and if it did, what the 


possible implications are from a dosimetric 


point of view. And then maybe at that point 


you folks, we can say, we can understand if 


there is any disagreement. And if there is, 


what its possible significance is. Is that a 


plan? 


MS. MUNN: That’s feasible to me, and one of 


the things that would be helpful for me also 


is if you could tie the diagram that you have 


in your hand, John, to the one that was in 


Elzerman’s report. 


DR. MAURO: I think it’s the same one. It 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

21 

is the same one. 


MS. MUNN: Is it? 


DR. MAURO: It should be. Oh, no, it’s 


different. 


MR. TOMES: It’s not the same one. 


MS. MUNN: For those of us who are not 


chemists it would be helpful, I think --


DR. MAURO: Would you prefer to work with 


that one? 


MS. MUNN: No, no, the one that you have is 


just fine. We’ve seen both of them, and 


having seen both of them --


DR. NETON: This one is in the TBD. It’s in 


the site profile. 


DR. MAURO: We found it very useful. 


MS. MUNN: That being the case since it 


varied from the data capture discovery review 


document that we had from Dr. Elzerman, I made 


a preliminary attempt to match the two of them 


in my visual framework and had a little bit of 


difficulty following the two. That’s why I 


asked. We’ll rely on the one that was in the 


TBD that you’ve just passed around unless we 


have indication that there’s a major 


difference in the two. And I’m assuming that 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

22 

you’re going to be able to tell us that, 


right? 


 MR. TOMES: To my knowledge there’s no major 


difference in the two. 


MS. MUNN: Okay, Bill? 


 MR. THURBER: I think if you start at the 


top line there, the Blockson monosodium 


phosphate process, during this step the pH of 


the solution is raised from a very low value 


for the phosphoric acid to a pH of about four. 


And that is done here with sodium hydroxide or 


sodium carbonate. 


And it’s not clear which reagent was 


used although in the Elzerman Report, he chose 


to assume that it was sodium hydroxide. There 


was other evidence provided and included in 


the Elzerman Report that says that Blockson at 


the time was purchasing large quantities of 


sodium carbonate so it could be either one. 


We don’t think it makes a great deal 


of difference. If it was sodium carbonate, it 


would probably increase the solubility of the 


thorium passing out of this box on the flow 


sheet, if you will, because of the possibility 


that the thorium might form some complexes 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

23 

with the carbonate ion. But we identified 


previously, and as did Elzerman, the 


possibility that some thorium would be 


precipitated during this set because as the pH 


is increased to about four, the Blockson 


literature notes that a number of species such 


as iron and calcium and so forth do 


precipitate. 


And there is a possibility that some 


of the thorium may precipitate there. And I 


think both we and Elzerman identified this as 


one point where the thorium might be removed 


in a waste stream. Now whether it is 


concentrated in that waste stream, we can’t 


say. We just don’t, there’s not enough 


information on the chemistry to come up with 


any really positive conclusion as to the 


concentration. 


DR. NETON: Where would this precipitate out 


and be removed from the process though? I 


don’t see a filtration step here or --


 MR. THURBER: But if you look at the 


Elzerman document, I believe he includes that 


in there. 


DR. ROESSLER: Where does it happen on this 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

24 

diagram? 


 MR. THURBER: Monosodium phosphate is a box 


which embraces several unit operations. It’s 


a great oversimplification of what happened in 


that process because what actually happened in 


the process is you add a base. You increase 


the pH; species are precipitated, and they are 


filtered and disposed of. So those steps all 


occur in that box, but they don’t show in the 


flow diagram. 


DR. ROESSLER: And so it doesn’t show where 


the other route would go if it doesn’t go with 


the phosphate liquid. 


 MR. THURBER: No. 


DR. NETON: But in your opinion as a 


professional chemist, would that likely be a 


quantitative separation of Thorium-230 at that 


point? I mean, you’re talking --


 MR. THURBER: No, no, we think it’s probably 


small quantity --


DR. NETON: Very small quantity, that’s 


important though. 


 MR. THURBER: I didn’t say very small. We 


don’t know. 


DR. NETON: That’s important though. It’s 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

25 

not a quantitative separation where one would 


have pure Thorium-230 in these filters. 


 MR. THURBER: We do not believe that to be 


the case, no. 


MS. MUNN: And frankly, this is one of the 


kinds of issues that I was disappointed in 


with respect to the report. I would really 


hope that we would have a clearer definition 


of what the possibilities were. What the 


probabilities were. 


 MR. THURBER: There’s just not enough 


information on the chemistry, and what they 


actually did. We thought, we looked at the 


FUSRAP Report, and it had in there some 


measurements of the thorium content of the 


disodium phosphate. I thought, gee, this is 


good, but it’s totally irrelevant because that 


was done at a later time when presumably they 


were making a different end product than the 


monosodium phosphate that was being produced 


at the time of the uranium recovery. 


So to repeat, unfortunately, the 


available information on chemistry just is not 


good enough to predict what we would all like 


to be able to predict about the concentration 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

of the thorium in that strip. We think it’s 


small, but beyond that we can’t say. 


MS. MUNN: I would have liked to have been 


able to say if were carbonate, then this is 


what you would expect. If it were phosphate, 


then this is what you would expect. 


 MR. THURBER: All we can say is 


qualitatively if it was carbonate, then less 


would have been removed at that step. But 


that’s very quantitatively. 


MR. TOMES: One thing. There are a couple 


references that did use the carbonate. There 


is a couple references that they did. 


 MR. THURBER: I’m sorry? 


MR. TOMES: There are a couple references 


that they used soda ash, the carbonate for the 


neutralization. 


 MR. THURBER: Yes, indeed, and I pointed 


out, but that was not the assumption that 


Elzerman made. He assumed it was sodium 


hydroxide. But it was the view of our people 


that it was not a substantive difference which 


reagent you assume. Small difference, not 


substantive. 


DR. NETON: I think your point is there 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

27 

wouldn’t be much difference, and you agreed 


that it would be a small separation, not a 


very quantitative concentration step. And at 


this point as far as I could tell, what we put 


into the drum isn’t more highly concentrated 


than this stuff would have produced. 


See, we have to keep in mind the end 


product of what we ended up putting into the 


drum and how concentrated that was relative to 


all these different steps where there may have 


been some separation. We don’t disagree with 


that. But you have to look at the end product 


of what we dumped into the drum and exposed 


the workers to on a chronic basis versus the 


small potential separation. 


I’ve done a lot of (unintelligible) 


chemistry in my earlier days working with 


(unintelligible), and I know that it’s 


somewhat difficult to separate thorium from 


uranium. You have to work --


MS. MUNN: Really hard. 


DR. NETON: -- not really hard, but it’s 


not, you have to do some special things to 


make sure thorium is removed so you don’t have 


thorium contamination uranium end product. So 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

28 

that’s why I’d be interested to hear in these 


various chemical steps where those 


quantitative separation steps would have 


happened. If they were like --


 MR. THURBER: As we said, we cannot --


DR. NETON: But I think you can make some 


value judgment as to how concentrated it could 


have been in each of these steps. And that’s 


what I’m interested in. 


 MR. THURBER: The other point where there’s 


a small difference I believe, and again, I 


believe it is not a substantive difference, is 


that we think there’s, if you look on the 


diagram, you’ll see next to the filter box 


filtrate return to the monosodium phosphate 


production kind of on the second tier of the 


figure. 


DR. MAURO: Left-hand side? 


 MR. THURBER: Yeah, you’ll see a caption 


there. It says filtrate returned to 


monosodium phosphate production. We think, 


again, that there’s a possibility that not all 


of the thorium was precipitated with the 


uranium at that point. And so some of it was 


returned downstream to whatever Blockson did 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

29 

with the material. Again, we don’t think it’s 


a quantitative separation in your terms, but 


we think there’s a possibility that some 


thorium may have gone in that direction. 


DR. ROESSLER: Let me ask you a question. 


There where it says filtrate returned to 


monosodium phosphate production is the one 


you’re talking about. Does that mean it 


recycles through the process? 


 MR. THURBER: Well, it ends up in the end 


product where it’s not concentrated 


presumably. 


DR. ROESSLER: This makes it sound like it 


goes back up and goes back through --


DR. NETON: No, this will go back out of the 


plant. 


 MR. THURBER: You have to take product out 


at some point. That’s what you’re trying to 


do is make a product to package and sell. 


DR. MAURO: You know how it helped me to 


think about this? The way I visualize this or 


I’m reading this is that you have this 


operation ongoing where they were making 


monosodium phosphate. This was what they did 


commercially. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

30 

And they had this system, and they 


knew that the whole system was such that when 


they finished their product, the uranium 


stayed in the system. And they wanted to 


build a kidney, in other words, they wanted to 


stick on to this process that was making 


monosodium phosphate a way to bleed off the 


uranium because that was a special product 


they want. So what this step is, the one that 


Bill just pointed to is, in effect, what they 


just did is go through that kidney. 


In other words they sent the 


phosphoric acid which contained the sulfur, 


the phosphoric acid with the uranium, with the 


thorium into this kidney, the side stream. 


And then they returned the monosodium 


phosphate, the arrow going to the left, to 


back where it started from to resume their 


normal commercial production. 


DR. ROESSLER: It doesn’t go back through --


DR. MAURO: And what it looks like to me is 


that here’s a place where when they, that 


little box called filter just to the right of 


that, that’s where all the action is. That’s 


where they’re tweaking the pH or the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

31 

(unintelligible) or whatever so that we can 


pull the uranium out but let the monosodium 


phosphate stay in solution and go back to 


where Building 44 wherever they were doing 


their normal thing. 


And the question becomes at that 


tweaking spot, there may very well have been 


good reason, maybe reason to believe that some 


of the uranium -- I’m sorry -- some of the 


thorium may have gone off in that direction. 


Correct me if I’m right, Bill. I 


don’t believe that issue was addressed in the 


Elzerman Report, that possible option. And I 


guess our folks felt that that was a 


possibility, which by the way, the only reason 


I bring it up is if, in fact, there was some 


substantial amount of thorium that stayed in 


the liquid that went to the monosodium 


phosphate process. What happens there, well, 


we don’t know. It may stay and be diluted in 


this enormous volume of the phosphate product. 


Or it may have come out in some purification 


step. 


You could correct me if I’m wrong. 


So there’s an unknown there if some of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

32 

it did go that way. 


MR. TOMES: Let me ask you about the 


Elzerman Report. I believe he did not 


specifically address the monosodium phosphate 


that was returned to, but he did evaluate that 


step in the process. 


DR. MAURO: Okay. 

MR. TOMES: He did do that. 

DR. MAURO: Did he come out saying that that 

might have been, that the thorium might have 


been --


MR. TOMES: He did not identify that as any 


significant --


DR. NETON: Again, I don’t know if this 


would be a quantitative separation of thorium. 


Here again, I view these as sort of chemical 


losses in the recovery of thorium. If one 


were trying to recover thorium --


DR. MAURO: You’re going to lose some over 


there. 


DR. NETON: -- you’re trying to recover 


uranium, but let’s say that the chemistry is 


sufficiently similar that the thorium will 


track the uranium for the most part. I think 


we all agree with that. And you’re going to 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

33 

have some line losses, so to speak, along the 


way. And we don’t disagree with that. 


 MR. THURBER: And I think that’s a 


reasonable perspective to put on it, just what 


he said. 


MS. MUNN: But the concern for those of us 


who are not physical chemists is how 


significant is that loss? How significant 


would the thorium exposure be? And the 


frustrating part of it from my perspective is 


I didn’t get that out of the report. I had 


hoped to try to get at least a range out of 


the report, and we didn’t get it. But I don’t 


mean to interrupt. 


Just want to make sure -- Dr. Melius 


has joined us at the table. Did you get a 


copy of this, of the pass around? 


DR. MELIUS: I’ve been here for quite 


awhile, Wanda. 


MS. MUNN: Well, I know you have. This is 


the first opportunity I’ve had to mention that 


you’re back, and I wanted to make sure that 


you had the handout. 


DR. MELIUS: Yes, I do. Thanks. 


MS. MUNN: I’m sorry. Go ahead, Bill. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

34

 MR. THURBER: Well, I think that really 


pretty much summarizes it. 


DR. MAURO: There was one more step in the 


back end if I recall. There’s a purification 


process for the uranium. That’s sort of 


weighted down in the throw. You almost 


envision, okay, now we’ve got, at that step 


where you see the filter and to the left of 


the word filter it says filtrate returned to 


monosodium, at the filter, here’s where you’re 


pulling the uranium out. Here’s where the, 


you’re finally making a product of uranium. 


But the uranium itself is not very purified. 


So as I understand it there’s a series of 


steps of dissolution and re-precipitation 


along the way to try to get as pure a product 


as you can. 


 MR. THURBER: That’s right. 


DR. MAURO: It was my understanding that 


during that process somewhere along the way 


there was another opportunity for the thorium 


to go separate ways. The degree to which it 


could occur I wish we had better answers for 


you. 


DR. NETON: But I think we can say there’s 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

35 

probably not a quantitative separation again 


at that point. 


DR. MAKHIJANI (by Telephone): Could I ask a 


question? This is Arjun. Isn’t part of the 


question here the ratio of uranium and thorium 


rather than the amounts of thorium which go 


off into the raffinate stream? Because the 


amount of uranium in the raffinate streams 


would also be an issue even if most of the 


thorium goes off with the uranium. 


The ratio of thorium to uranium in the 


raffinate streams may be much bigger. I think 


given that we have uranium bioassay but not 


thorium measurements, I think the ratio would 


be important. Perhaps I’m wrong, but that’s 


the question that seems to me central. 


DR. NETON: I’m not sure, Arjun. 


DR. MAURO: Let me jump in. I think I 


understand, and I think that that’s a valid 


concern. Think of it like this. You’ve got 


this 55 gallon drum of uranium. And let’s for 


the sake of this discussion assume that all 


the thorium for all intents and purposes ends 


up in that drum. Then you say, okay, now we 


have people that are filling the drum. In 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

36 

other words you have these hoppers, and 


they’re filling the drum. And the dust that’s 


coming up off the process is going to be some 


kind of milligrams per cubic meter of dust 


that people are going to breathe. And that 


milligram is made up of uranium yellowcake and 


thorium in equal amounts because they’re in 


equilibrium. 


DR. NETON: Activity wise. 


DR. MAURO: Activity wise, so if you’ve got 


a curie of uranium in the can, you’ve got a 


curie of Thorium-230 in the can. 


DR. NETON: Exactly. 


DR. MAURO: And then if you kick up a 


milligram, whatever the specific activity is 


you’ve got to know that you have equal amounts 


of, so now you have, now you’re inhaling x 


amount of uranium and x amount of thorium. So 


it’s the ratio. Now, let’s for a second 


presume that it goes that route and that’s 


exactly the method that you folks adopted so 


that you account for the intake of thorium. 


Now, Arjun’s perspective is, oh, wait 


a minute. Let’s say for a moment that only a 


small fraction, let’s say 20 percent -- I’m 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

37 

making this up -- of the thorium goes in a 


different direction, and it ends up in some 


small volume raffinate, relatively small 


volume raffinate. But for all intents and 


purposes its specific activity, the number of 


curies per gram of material is much higher. 


Now I think there’s a lot of curies or 


millicuries in that particular box that we 


don’t have on this chart, but if it has a much 


higher specific activity in terms of curies 


per gram, even though the total curies is 


lower, the curies per gram might be higher 


even though the volume is smaller because that 


creates potential for the guy whose job it is 


to get rid of that stuff to go in, clean out 


that pit, wherever that side stream is 


generated. And if it dries out, and I guess 


it’s a question we don’t have the answer to. 


DR. NETON: Let me try to put some 


perspective on this issue because I’ve thought 


about this some in the last week or so. We 


feel it’s claimant favorable to put all of the 


thorium into the drum for several reasons. 


One is that the processes are similar. 


The chemistries of thorium and uranium are 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

38 

similar, and we’ve already discussed the fact 


that in general thorium will follow uranium 


unless you do some pretty specific things to 


try to concentrate it. We see no evidence 


anywhere in the plant that that occurred. 


Now, when you dump the thorium and 


uranium in equal activities, uranium has an 


activity, Uranium-238 of about 330 nanocuries 


per gram. So for every gram of uranium you 


dump in that drum, you’re also dumping 330 


nanocuries of thorium. That’s 330 nanocuries 


of thorium per gram of material. That’s a 


huge amount. 


In fact, if you take the original 


input stream which is 40 picocuries per gram 


of each, and if you assume that you’ve got 100 


percent recovery, which is not necessarily 


true, but it can get that high, you have 


concentrated that thorium by a factor of about 


8,000. That’s a pretty good concentration 


step to assume in this process, and probably 


not unreasonable given the similarities of the 


chemistry. 


So we dumped it all in there. We 


concentrate it by a factor of 8,000, and we’re 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

39 

giving simultaneous exposure to both uranium 


and thorium to every worker on a chronic 


basis. I know of no other step in the 


production process of this material that 


concentrates thorium to that extent or I’ve 


not heard of any either. 


Secondly, if one looks at the DOE 


history of raffinate, admittedly the 


chemistries could be different, but a 


raffinate stream that would produce 330 


nanocuries per gram of Thorium-230 is pretty 


darn high. In fact, I went back and looked at 


what the Thorium-230 in the raffinate at 


Fernald is which was a well-known raffinateusing, highly concentrated Belgian Congo ore. 


The entire Silo 3 at the Fernald site had 


about 60 nanocuries per gram of Thorium-230. 


So I am at a loss to think of any other step 


in this process that would have concentrated 


to a higher degree than what we put into the 


drum of uranium. I’m open to suggestions. 


DR. MAURO: Oh, no, no, I didn’t know that 


what you just said. And what you’re saying 


that when you search for it, because you’re 


processing uranium all the time. And you’re 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 -- 

40 

saying you would have to generate that kind of 


side stream, and you haven’t seen it. 


DR. NETON: Well, I’ve not seen 330 


nanocuries per gram generated on a basis like 


this. 


DR. MAURO: Has anyone ever taken a sample 


of the 55 gallon drum to see what’s in it? 


DR. NETON: Of this material? 


DR. MAURO: Yeah. 


DR. NETON: No, I don’t think so. 


DR. MAURO: Or a similar operation to see 


how much thorium makes it over? 


DR. NETON: No. But I think the point is 


not that did it quantitatively go. I think we 


all agree that it probably did. But the 


question is did it quantitatively concentrate 


anywhere to a greater degree than what we put 


into the drum. And that’s really the relevant 


issue here. 


DR. MAURO: I agree. 


DR. ROESSLER: But what you’re saying really 


to me is speculation. The question, which we 


don’t have an answer to, and I think what you 


have to do is evaluate this ratio or whatever 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

41 

DR. MAURO: I agree. 


DR. ROESSLER: But the other thing you asked 


about, has anybody ever measured in the drum. 


Are there any measurements in these off-


streams? Is there any indication from any 


process or anybody who’s done any measurements 


to show that there is thorium in it? 


DR. NETON: I’ve looked a little bit at the 


Florida Institute of Phosphate Research report 


which they’re voluminous reports, 300-page 


reports. I’ve seen nowhere in any of those 


reports, now, admittedly this is more current 


day chemistry of these phosphate products. I 


don’t think it’s fundamentally different than 


what happened back in ’55. 


There is nowhere that I have seen that 


anyone was concerned about the presence of 


Thorium-230 concentrated in raffinates to an 


extent that we have to get to that would be 


higher than 330 nanocuries per gram. In fact, 


the most recent study in 1998 that was put 


out, of which Wes Bolch is one of the authors, 


did a fairly extensive -- extensive is 


probably too strong -- a reasonable survey of 


the chemical phosphate industry including the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

42 

wet chemistry process. 


And there are air samples out in the 


plant where they’re not seeing high airborne 


concentrations of materials. In fact, I think 


the highest concentrations they could get were 


about a picocurie per cubic meter of activity 


in the air at a location where they were 


actually changing out filters and such. 


So I’ve not identified in the 


phosphate industry a place where a filter 


would (a) have to have a huge, more than 330 


nanocuries per gram of Thorium-230, and be dry 


and manipulated to the extent that it can 


generate these large air concentrations to 


expose the workers greater than what we’ve 


done in the drum. 


So there’s sort of a --


DR. MAURO: What you’re saying is there are 


some powerful circumstantial evidence that 


says that that’s just not happening. And 


you’re not getting something worse than what 


you’ve assumed. 


DR. ROESSLER: I think it’s bounding what --


DR. NETON: It appears to us to be a pretty 


good, solid logic flow to this versus the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

43 

hypothetical scenarios that have been 


presented. 


DR. MAKHIJANI (by Telephone): This is 


Arjun. I think maybe I didn’t make my point. 


I wasn’t understood or something. The 


question isn’t the degree of thorium 


concentration from the ore to the uranium 


drum. I mean, anytime you process ore, you’re 


going to get poor quality ore, you’re going to 


get very large concentrations as the 


concentration factors. 


I think the question is the ratio of 


uranium to thorium in the various streams. Is 


the ratio of uranium to thorium in the drum 


bigger than the ratio of, or comparable, to 


the ratio of uranium to thorium in the 


raffinate streams. And this is not different 


than the problem we had in Mallinckrodt in 


terms of internal intakes. Although the 


chemistry is different, the conceptual issue 


is the same. 


DR. NETON: But, Arjun, what I was 


suggesting is you have to find a mechanism 


where the concentration factor was higher than 


around 8,000. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

44 

DR. MAKHIJANI (by Telephone): No, that’s 


not the point, and that is what I’m trying to 


get across is if the ratio of thorium to 


uranium in the raffinate streams is 20-to-1, 


it doesn’t really matter because you don’t 


have a measurement of thorium. You’re trying 


to base your thorium intake estimate from your 


uranium measurement --


DR. NETON: No, no, no, what I’m saying is ­

-


DR. MAKHIJANI (by Telephone): -- and it’s a 


1-to-1 ratio in the drum. And I think the 


ratio’s more important. 


DR. NETON: What I’m saying is picocuries 


per gram of material inhaled, you would have 


to concentrate it more than 8,000 times to get 


more picocuries per gram inhaled, per unit 


mass of material inhaled, than what we have 


put into the drum. I’m not considering 


uranium as radioactive. I’m just saying it’s 


a gram of substance, and there are 330 


nanocuries of thorium per gram of material in 


the drum. 


Forget the fact that it’s uranium. 


Now, what I’m saying is you would have to find 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

45 

a mechanism that would produce more than 330 


nanocuries per gram of filtrate somewhere 


where it concentrates to that extent in the 


plant, and we just don’t see that. I’m not 


seeing any evidence of that occurring. 


MR. ELLIOTT: We have an outreach meeting 


that we’ve scheduled where we’re going to 


speak to workers about how we have changed the 


site profile technical basis approach here. 


And is there a point in the diagram here that 


we should try to pursue a little better 


elucidation of the processes that occurred at 


that point or that step? Do you know what I’m 


trying to say here? 


 MR. THURBER: Yes. 


DR. MAURO: Jim, I think you’ve nailed it in 


terms of what is the question. Sometimes 


that’s the whole ballgame; what’s the right 


question to ask. Is there any reason to 


believe that there are any components anywhere 


along here where the picocuries per gram, not 


uranium, picocuries per gram of matrix, 


material, it dried out. And is it possible 


that you could have more picocuries per gram 


of material, dry material, that is greater 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

46 

than the picocuries per gram that’s in the 55 


gallon drum? 

DR. NETON: Exactly. 

DR. MAURO: And I never thought of it in 

those terms. But if a case could be made, an 

argument could be made that says we just don’t 


see it. We just don’t see it as you had 


pointed out from looking at the literature. 


Notwithstanding you may get these 


bifurcations. The out product, even if it 


dries out, and it may not even dry out, but 


even if it dries out we’re saying it’s still 


going to be lower than what’s in the can, the 


55 gallon drum. I find that to be very 


compelling. 


DR. NETON: We may need to look at the 


literature a little more on this. I have not 


done an exhaustive search, but certainly in 


the raffinate processes that I’m aware of, it 


would be hard to get that high of a chemical 


separation of the thorium into a mass of 


material like that. 


Larry has an excellent point. We 


intend when we go out, I think it’s September 


12th
 . 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

47 

Tom, is that right? 


MR. TOMES: Yes. 


DR. NETON: We’re going September 12th to 


Blockson, and this is certainly going to be 


high on our list to try to learn any 


additional information from the workers about 


these filtrate steps and mass of the filter, 


that sort of stuff. Because that would help 


me out as well. 


If you notice, a lot of these filtrate 


steps have what they call filter aids and 


stuff which are inorganic/organic flocculent 


matrices to try to help precipitate the 


material. Because the fact is there’s not 


much mass of Thorium-230. I mean, per gram of 


uranium in that drum there’s a ten to the 


minus 13th grams of Thorium-230, the specific 


activity is so high for Thorium-230. 


And it’s been my experience in my 


earlier days as a radiochemist, if you’ve got 


little bits of material like that, it’s hard 


to get it out of solution. You can’t get, 


there’s just sort of a process where you have 


to have a sufficient critical mass, not a 


nuclear critical mass, but a critical mass to 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

48 

be able to precipitate quantitatively material 


out of solution. 


DR. MAURO: You need a carrier. 


DR. NETON: You need a carrier, exactly. 


So you would need significant amounts 


of carrier to bring that stuff out to 


quantitatively isolate it in one location. 


Which again brings me to the fact that it’s 


going to be hard to get more than 330 


nanocuries per gram of this stuff in one 


location. 


MR. ELLIOTT: I think you also have to 


figure out if you can from the workers what 


the conditions of working with the material 


were. Was it a wet raffinate? Was it a 


slurry? Did they dry it before they removed 


it as a filter cake and placed it in the drum? 


And, you know, you talk about 


milligrams per cubic meter, that puts a lot of 


dust in the air. I’m thinking more on the 


order of micrograms per cubic meter of 


exposure. So I think those kind of questions 


need to be pursued here. 


DR. NETON: I think an 8,000 times 


quantitative isolation of materials is a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

49 

fairly good chemical process. 


DR. MAURO: I think we’re going to get to 


the point in this where it’s going to be 


weight of evidence. We’re going to get to the 


point where there’s not going to be an 


absolute answer where we have measurements 


made, and we’ve got the definitive proof. You 


know, something that we all would have liked 


to have seen. 


But what I’m hearing is the weight of 


the evidence in terms of the quantity of 


material in terms of mass and is it possible 


that enough thorium went into that relatively 


small mass to create a situation where you 


have much higher specific activity than in the 


55 gallon drum. And it dried out, and there 


was enough there to create an airborne aerosol 


that could have been inhaled over a protracted 


period of time the way it was, obviously, in 


the 55 gallon drum. 


So it’s all this coming together that 


you would argue, well, where do you come down 


on this. But unfortunately, I think we’re 


going to end up in a place where it’s not 


going to be definitive. It’s going to be 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

50 

weight of evidence that seems to make the most 


sense. 


MS. MUNN: You know, during the worker 


meetings that were held at Blockson earlier, 


there were several individuals who had firsthand knowledge, were actually there at the 


time and were able to provide a great deal of 


what I thought was informative data. 


Unfortunately, I have not seen the minutes 


from that particular, from the workers we had 


at the meeting. 


I’m assuming that you have, Jim, and 


you’ve been on that. 


DR. NETON: Yes. 


MS. MUNN: I only am going from memory, from 


what I heard there. But I did not have the 


impression that there were dry processes 


anywhere except at the end of the line. If 


that’s the case, then the issue should be able 


to be tied down a little better. Both Gen and 


Mike have indicated that they’re going to be 


available for this worker, upcoming worker 


meeting at Blockson, which is very good. I’m 


glad. I’m not going to be able to be there. 


DR. ROESSLER: You’re glad we’re going to be 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

51 

there since you can’t be there? 


MS. MUNN: I’m glad you’re going to be there 


for more than one reason. One of the things I 


would like to see happening going into this 


meeting is I would like to have this group 


define precisely the question that needs to be 


asked of these workers because the previous 


opportunities that they had were to tell us 


their stories. And they did, in fact, do 


that. It was a well-run meeting. The workers 


had plenty of opportunity to speak for as long 


as they wanted to about information that they 


had. And they did provide excellent 


information. 


This time, if we’re going to continue 


to have meetings, rather than having the 


workers run open as it were, it appears to me 


we’re at a point where it’s crucial we 


identify the questions that need to be asked 


and try to make every effort, ask Laurie to 


make an effort to see that the people who were 


there the last time or any additional people 


who might have information that will bear 


directly on those limited issues be asked to 


be present. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 -- 

23 

24 

25 

52 

Can we put together, in my view, no 


more than three, actually, I see only two 


questions that need to be asked specifically. 


Can we do that? Is it within our purview to 


request of Labor that their meeting proceeds 


with the concept that these are the specific 


questions we need responses to? 


DR. NETON: This is our meeting. When you 


said Labor, I thought you meant the Department 


of Labor. 


MS. MUNN: Well, I, no, the workers. 


 DR. WADE: I think it’s certainly a purview 


for this working group to make that 


recommendation. I wouldn’t limit it just to 


that. You always want to give people the 


floor to say anything they want, but to ask 


specific questions along with an open session 


I think is perfectly reasonable. 


DR. ROESSLER: I haven’t been at an outreach 


meeting so at any meeting who actually runs 


the meeting? Is it you? It’s NIOSH? So you 


MR. ELLIOTT: There are various purposes 


behind an outreach meeting. This particular 


outreach meeting’s purpose is to walk out for 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

53 

the workers a revised technical basis approach 


that speaks to all of the types of dose that 


needs to be reconstructed for this workforce. 


And in that we also have a purpose and an 


opportunity in this purpose to explore certain 


issues or questions that we still need an 


answer to. 


So that’s, so NIOSH will be leading 


this meeting. Yes, we’ll have our contractor 


there to capture minutes, and we’ll share 


those minutes with the folks who attend and 


make sure that we are correctly and accurately 


compiling what their thoughts were and their 


responses were. 


DR. MAURO: For the record, just some of the 


feedback from SC&A regarding areas that we 


think that might be worth exploring, and it 


doesn’t go toward talking about thorium 


because I don’t think we’re going to get much 


help on talking about thorium. For example, 


in the chart there are, I guess, three points 


where we’d like to know more about what went 


on. Something that they probably would know 


about because they lived it. 


MS. MUNN: And we’ve only talked about two. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

54 

So where’s the third? 


DR. MAURO: I have three. The three are in 


the drawing on the very, very top line where 


it says the square box that says Blockson’s 


monosodium phosphate process. Then we’ve got 


a more complicated box that’s shown here, and 


there was some separation activity going on in 


there where there was some purification of the 


stream where they pulled off some particulate 


material to allow, the next step is the 


monosodium liquor. 


In other words you see moving off to 


the right of that box is the liquor. Well, 


the question becomes right now we’re operating 


on the premise that all the uranium is sitting 


in that liquor, and all of the thorium is 


sitting in that liquor. 


Well, we suspect that to some degree 


there’s some activity going on in that box 


where they’re pulling off some particulate 


material to help purify that stream, make it a 


better stream is what they’re trying to do. 


The question is what did they do? In other 


words what were those streams like? What did 


they pull off? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

55 

And the product that came out, if 


those streams did exist, what did they do with 


them? Did they dry them? Put them in a box? 


Dispose of them? Or were they staying wet, 


and they ended up some place else in some 


slurry? So that’s the kind of question they 


probably know the answer to. They wouldn’t be 


able to say anything to the effect whether 


thorium went that way, but if we knew that was 


dry, that’s point number one. 


MR. ELLIOTT: And how many steps that box 


includes. 


MS. MUNN: Yeah, what happened with it. 


 MR. THURBER: Was it just put down the 


sewer? 


DR. MAURO: Or did it go down the sewer, 


yeah. 


Now the other place where I see some 


action that they could talk about is the next 


tier down right in the middle of the page 


where you see the word filter, and then to the 


left it says filtrate returned to monosodium 


phosphate production. Well, that’s that place 


where the monosodium phosphate, the commercial 


product, goes back into the commercial line. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

56 

Now we believe that there’s a good 


chance that at least some of the uranium --


I’m sorry -- some of the thorium may have gone 


to the left. In other words at that point 


that’s where you’re getting the separation. 


That’s where the uranium is being separated 


from the commercial product. 


Now one of the questions we have is 


was that separation of such a nature where 


some substantial amount of thorium may have 


gone off to the left with the monosodium 


phosphate production. Let’s say --


MR. ELLIOTT: And does that go back into 


that other box we just talked about? 


DR. NETON: That goes back into the plant. 

DR. MAURO: That goes back into the plant 

because --

DR. NETON: That goes back to Building 4. 

DR. MAURO: -- yeah, and that’s where 

they’re making the product. That’s what they 


do for a living over there commercially. 


Now, now you’ve got this commercial 


product. And it’s a large volume. This is 


where the volume is. This is what they’re 


making for a living. Well, inside it possibly 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

57 

there’s some thorium and --


DR. NETON: But that’s no different than the 


regular process at this point, just that the 


uranium’s been removed. Which brings up 


Arjun’s point. 


DR. MAURO: That’s correct. 


DR. NETON: This is a uranium stream’s been 


removed. Thorium is in there. It would have 


been there all along no matter what. 


DR. MAURO: All along, it would have been 


there anyway. 


DR. NETON: So then the question is does 


thorium concentrate at all in the balance at 


Plant 4, Building 40. And I say the Fipper* 


Reports show that it doesn’t seem to if the 


process is the same. But we can ask the 


workers. 


DR. MAURO: And the reason that becomes 


important because you brought Building 44 into 


the action as a result of the new work. Now 


you can’t say, well, it’s just part of the 


process. 


Now the third place, and I bring this 


up because these are questions that I guess we 


would like answered. The third place is on 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

58 

the very bottom of the chart where you see 


right in the middle of the page on the bottom 


line the word filter, and it says filtrate to 


waste. 


This is one of the last steps in the 


process where the uranium itself is being 


purified so that you get the best quality 


yellowcake you possibly can in the end of the 


process. So there’s some kind of filtration, 


re-precipitation step occurring here to try to 


get a purified uranium. Now is it possible 


that this is the last place where some thorium 


may break out? 


DR. NETON: Well, the filtrate to waste, I 


assume that this is a liquid waste stream. 


DR. MAURO: That’s right, and if that’s the 


case, we need to know that. Or they may --


DR. NETON: That just goes to the sewer. 


DR. MAURO: -- or they may dry it, package 


it and dispose of it as solid waste. Perhaps 


return it to the tailings pile. 


DR. NETON: Yeah, that’s a good question. 


DR. MAURO: So those are the three places 


where if we could -- I guess there are two 


questions here. One, if it stays wet, the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

59 

problem goes away. Two, if the quantity of 


thorium is small and the matrix in which it is 


in is relatively large, well, then the 


specific activity of the thorium in that 


little package is not going to be as bad as it 


is in the 55 gallon drum. The problem goes 


away. 


DR. NETON: One of the issues I think is how 


frequently they changed out those filters 


because it’s easy to calculate sort of a 


bounding estimate to how much thorium could be 


in those filters on a worst-case basis. But 


they made one drum a month basically or 


something like that. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, it wasn’t much. 


MR. TOMES: I’m just going to come in on 


this last step, on this filtrate to waste, the 


final filter. Blockson had in all their 


documentation the work they had done, they had 


an action of actually, this filtrate was 


identified as going to a sewer. And they 


would sample it. If it was less than 0.5 


grams U per liter, they would dump it to a 


sewer which indicates that they were checking 


to be sure they got all the uranium out of it. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

60 

And there also was a step that I 


believe Dr. Elzerman, if I’m interpreting 


correctly, that is probably the most likely 


place the Thorium-230 would be separated from 


the uranium at that step right there. Where 


the Thorium-230 may have formed some complexes 


that did not precipitate out in that step, and 


it could have gotten pumped to the sewer. 


DR. MAURO: And could have gone --


MR. ELLIOTT: And going to the sewer implies 


a wet stream. 


DR. NETON: Yeah, it would just be dumped 


down a drain. 


DR. ROESSLER: But going to the sewer 


implies no concern for workers. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, I think that’s a line on 


putting this to bed by then answering these 


questions. 


DR. NETON: If this filtrate was sampled and 


had more than -- what was it? Half a --


MR. TOMES: Half a gram. 


DR. NETON: -- half a gram per liter, I 


assume they probably feed it back into the re-


precipitation process. 


MR. TOMES: I don’t know, but I would assume 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

61 

that they would; however, I don’t think it 


would be a significant amount because they 


would have had additional steps if they were 


having significant problems. 


MS. MUNN: It would only be good business to 


do so. 


DR. NETON: But it’s very, very good to 


bring these up. You’re right. 


 DR. WADE: So the need for the worker 


outreach meeting. You also mentioned, Jim, 


that you had looked at the literature but 


maybe not as rigorously. Is that something 


that the work group wants pursued or not? 


MS. MUNN: I think the literature probably 


has been pretty well beaten to death by now. 


I would suspect both our contractor and our 


subcontractor and certainly the agency has --


MR. ELLIOTT: We presume the subject matter 


experts looked at it fairly --


MS. MUNN: Well, that’s theoretically what 


they are. Subject experts who already know 


what’s in the literature. My concern is in 


the discussion here, being a novice to this 


type of production, it still appears to me 


that I’m hearing the same kinds of discussions 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

62 

that I thought I was hearing at the worker 


meeting at Blockson. 


So there’s concern with respect to 


whether that source of information has been 


adequately mined. I haven’t seen it. I 


haven’t seen the minutes. And there were 


several people who spoke specifically to the 


types of conditions under which the waste 


streams were handled. Not extensively, but 


they spoke to them. 


I want to make sure that we’re not 


asking questions that have already been 


answered in previous worker meetings. Without 


those minutes, and my apologies for not having 


requested those earlier --


MR. TOMES: I believe there was a couple 


brief comments made at the previous worker 


meetings concerning waste streams. It was not 


the focus of the questions necessarily, but 


there was a couple, I know I asked a couple 


questions. It was very brief, and the people 


did not know the answer to it. So there was 


really nothing discussed. But it was clearly 


not, we did not focus on those issues. We 


were focused on the general process. And I 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

63 

believe it would be beneficial to focus on 


these issues at the meeting because we did not 


focus on them at all. I mean, it was just it 


was a couple comments here and there and 


people did not identify that they knew 


anything about that. But perhaps if we asked 


more specific questions, a couple of the 


workers who actually worked in that building 


may know. 


DR. ROESSLER: How hard would it be to get 


the minutes? It seems like we should have 


them. 


 DR. WADE: This is the first action item. 


DR. ROESSLER: Pardon? 


 DR. WADE: This is the first action item. 


It seems that those minutes should be shared 


with our work group. 


MR. TOMES: They’re on the website. 


DR. ROESSLER: They are on the website? 


MR. TOMES: Uh-huh. 


DR. ROESSLER: Oh, under the Blockson? 


MR. TOMES: Yes. 


DR. NETON: I’d like to get back to what Lew 


mentioned about the literature, and maybe 


that’s a misunderstanding what I meant by a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

64 

review of the literature. What I was talking 


about was not necessarily reviewing the 


literature on the radiochemistry of thorium, 


but to review the literature on the raffinates 


that were produced in the Department of Energy 


process to determine, to put a sort of sanity 


check on this. What are the upper limits that 


one observes when one is not trying to 


purposely concentrate thorium? 


I mean, just as sort of a byproduct of 


concentrating uranium, that one can put an 


upper cap on what the concentration of 


Thorium-230 in these raffinates might have 


been. It wouldn’t be the end result, but it 


would add to this sort of weight of the 


evidence argument that John Mauro was talking 


about that, yeah, we don’t see any place where 


it concentrates, intentionally try to 


concentrate thorium. 


Let’s look at some similar processes 


and see what the raffinates contain as far as 


thorium, and indeed, have we not bounded the 


amount by dumping it all in the drum and 


putting 330 nanocuries per gram into the 


workers’ breathing zone. I thought that that 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 -- 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

65 

would just add some extra weight of the 


evidence to the argument. 


DR. ROESSLER: Give an example of where they 


were doing something where they were not 


trying to concentrate uranium at least for my 


DR. NETON: Well, the raffinate at Fernald, 


the Thorium-230 cold door silos, Silo 3, had 


an average concentration of about 60 


nanocuries per gram of Thorium-230. That is 


some of the highest uranium-bearing ores that 


was ever produced, the Belgian Congo ores, and 


it came up. I’m not suggesting it was exactly 


the same, but I’m saying that this is sort of 


what you end up with in a process where you 


take tons of ore products and start refining 


it. 


DR. MAURO: So I think it’s you’re saying 


you saw 60 nanocuries per gram of Fernald 


raffinate and at the Blockson can, it’s 80? 


DR. NETON: Three hundred and thirty. 

DR. MAURO: Three hundred and thirty. 

DR. NETON: Assuming you have 100 percent 

recovery. Now that may or may not be true, 


but if it’s 50 you can scale it down by half. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

66 

If it’s a pure uranium product, it would be, 


because it was in equilibrium with uranium. 


Uranium has about 330 nanocuries per gram. So 


you’d have 330 nanocuries of Thorium-230. 


That’s a fairly high amount, a third 


of a microcurie of uranium per gram in the 


breathing zone of the workers is quite a bit. 


Again, I’m hard pressed to see anywhere in 


this process where it might be higher. 


DR. MAURO: I think that’s an important 


element to this whole argument. 


DR. NETON: I think that it might be. We 


won’t do a definitive search, but just sort of 


a sanity check, an upper bounding look. 


Clearly, if we found a bunch of places it’s 


much higher than that, and I do have to state 


with a caveat that they weren’t purposely 


trying to concentrate Thorium-230. There are 


some processes, for example, at Mallinckrodt 


where they were trying to make Thorium-230 to 


send it to Mound for production purposes. 


MR. ELLIOTT: For the worker outreach 


meeting I think from this discussion and from 


the reviews that we’ve had from the subject 


matter experts on both sides, I think we are 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

67 

able to formulate good questions. And I think 


Jim and Tom can put those things together and 


share them with the working group. 


And we should carry them to the field 


with us for this meeting with these workers 


and have them on one page and make sure that 


we attend to business there and focus on those 


questions when we get to that part in the 


presentation. 


MS. MUNN: That I think would be highly 


appropriate. And as a matter of fact since we 


have a very short agenda here today, and this 


topic is the key topic. So far as I know it’s 


really the only outstanding topic. Am I 


correct? 


DR. MAURO: There’s one other topic that I 


would consider to be a non-SEC issue that we 


would benefit from some discussion today even 


though it’s a non-SEC. And this has to do 


with the Type M, Type S discussion we had 


before. 


MS. MUNN: Yes. 


DR. MAURO: The reason I say it’s a non-SEC 


because, you know, for obvious reasons. 


Whether or not it would even benefit from some 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

68 

discussion of that today also is certainly up 


to the working group. 


MS. MUNN: I think that would be a fine 


thing to do. What I’m going to suggest is a 


little unusual. So far as I know we haven’t 


done this in the past, but because we’re here, 


because we’re all clear on what we want to do 


but not clear on the specifics of what the 


question needs to be, I would like to suggest 


that we take about a 45-minute break and have 


our NIOSH folks and our SC&A folks sit down 


and write out, define for us, what those three 


big questions are going to be that we’ll ask 


of the workers. If we can do that, then we 


can get the questions together. We can have a 


short break for lunch. We can come back. The 


entire group can look at the questions and 


agree or disagree, add to or correct, and we 


can have a brief discussion on the Type M 


issue. Is that satisfactory with everyone 


here? Does that make sense? 


 (no response) 


MS. MUNN: It doesn’t appear to me that 


composing the three questions is feasible in 


our entire group and having the people on the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

69 

phone waiting to see what we’re going to come 


up with. That discussion probably is not 


productive for all of us. But those folks who 


are the experts need to be the ones who are 


telling us what we need to know to resolve 


this. Are you all amenable with that? 


DR. ROESSLER: Uh-huh. 


MS. MUNN: If that’s the case, then I would 


suggest that the larger group now adjourn 


temporarily. That will give you until 12 noon 


to put together the questions. Will we need 


more than a half hour after that for lunch as 


well? 


DR. NETON: It depends on how long it takes 


the smaller group to write the questions. 


MS. MUNN: Let’s adjourn temporarily. We 


will, let’s come back here at 12:45. Agreed? 


DR. NETON: Okay. 


MS. MUNN: And those of you who are going to 


put the questions together, please do so. For 


the folks on the telephone, I think you can 


take a break until 12:45. 


DR. NETON: Are we going to break the 


connection here? 


 DR. WADE: Yeah, we’ll break the connection. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

70 

We’ll dial back in at 12:40. 


(Whereupon, the working group recessed from 


11:13 a.m. until 12:45 p.m.) 


THREE QUESTIONS FOR WORKERS’ MEETING
 

MS. MUNN: Welcome back, let’s call 


ourselves back into session. I understand 


that we had a productive meeting with respect 


to pulling together the three questions that 


we specifically want to make sure get 


addressed during the next workers’ meeting. 


Who would like to read those questions to us 


so that we can have any discussion that might 


evolve from that? 


MR. TOMES: I can do that. 


MS. MUNN: Thank you, Tom. 


MR. TOMES: We have three questions with 


some details on each question a little bit 


here. The first one is what were the steps 


involved in the monosodium phosphate 


production process which occurred in Building 


40 to partially neutralize the phosphoric acid 


before they pumped to Building 55? And I’ve 


got a couple other questions I’d like to, you 


know, related to that, you know, more focused 


responses that we can get from the workers. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

71 

For example, what happened to the solids 


filtered out before the liquid was pumped to 


Building 55 as a potential source. And we 


want to know if there was any drying done in 


Building 40 of this filtered out waste. 


MS. MUNN: My guess is we’ll be very 


fortunate if we have workers who can get down 


to that level of specificity, but 


nevertheless, it’s worth asking. 


MR. TOMES: And also if there was filter 


change-out frequency for filtering material in 


Building 40. 


And the second question is how was the 


monosodium phosphate processed after it left 


Building 55. So we’re wanting to know 


actually what happened, what they did to the 


processed monosodium phosphate before it came 


into Building 55, and what they did with it 


after it left Building 55. Where it went if 


they know that, and again, if it was filtered 


or further processed in their regular plants. 


And the third question we’re proposing 


to ask is how was the waste from Building 55 


handled. Specifically, the liquid waste that 


was generated from the final step, what was 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

72 

done with that? Was it processed or pumped 


out? If they know anything about that 


particular waste stream. 


And we’d also like to know if they 


know any information about how filtrate waste 


may have been handled. You know, they 


recycled some of the filtrate in the building. 


And at some point it’s assumed that that would 


become not useful to re-use, and they would 


have discarded it. 


And those were our three questions 


right there. 


MS. MUNN: I believe I recall having heard 


some of them talk about some of the waste 


stream having been pumped outside, but I don’t 


recall the specifics and haven’t re-read, and 


shouldn’t make that comment really because I 


haven’t re-read the minutes. 


But does anyone have any concern, any 


further issue with respect to those three 


questions? Do you feel they cover what we’re 


attempting to get to here? 


DR. ROESSLER: I was looking at the minutes 


from that last public outreach while I was 


having lunch, and I haven’t gotten all the way 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

73 

through them yet, but I think we’re going to 


have a problem with terminology. I don’t see 


anything in the minutes that talks about the 


monosodium process. 


I think they used words, they say 


liquor, and they have different terminology. 


And I think we’re going to have to have 


somebody translate these questions into 


something that the workers will identify with 


or we’re not going to get answers. 


MR. TOMES: The liquor is common in the 


literature, too, referred to as liquor in the 


Building 55. 


MS. MUNN: Are you going to be at that 


meeting, Tom? 


MR. TOMES: Yes, ma’am. 


MS. MUNN: And John? 


DR. MAURO: I was not planning to. It would 


be Bill or Chick Phillips. They know a lot 


more about it than I do. 


MS. MUNN: Okay, so then either Bill or 


Chick will be there. 


DR. MAURO: Yes. 


MS. MUNN: Will you folks be able to make 


that cross-connection between terminology? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

74

 MR. THURBER: I think if one showed them 


this diagram and said we’re talking about this 


box here that’s called the Blockson monosodium 


phosphate process. We’re talking about this 


waste stream which says, whatever it says, 


return process. 


MS. MUNN: Yeah, I was going to say we need 


a better copy. 


 MR. THURBER: I didn’t have my glasses on; 


that’s all. And we’re talking about primarily 


this waste stream here, you know. Tell us 


what you know about those. I think that would 


probably capture it, and capture it in a way 


that they would be able to understand 


precisely where we were going. 


Jim? 


DR. NETON: I agree. I think it’s a good 


idea to have this diagram because this is a 


1958 vintage diagram that presumably some of 


the workers might recognize. 


DR. ROESSLER: You think there’d be also a 


connection between the diagram and locations 


in the building that would help them focus in 


on what the questions are? 


DR. NETON: My recollection, Building 55 is 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

75 

pretty small. 


MS. MUNN: Yeah, it’s not --


DR. NETON: It’s a hundred by two hundred. 


MS. MUNN: It’s not a big building. 


DR. NETON: So we just need to differentiate 


between what was in Building 55 and then the 


balance of the phosphate processing area which 


I think is Building 40. 


MS. MUNN: Yeah, 40. 


DR. NETON: Forty. So I think we could make 


that distinction for one of them. It’s a good 


plan. I think we need to make sure we have 


this available to display. 


DR. MELIUS: We should have this blown up so 


we can use it as a display thing or something. 


DR. NETON: Yeah, we’ll have a PowerPoint --


DR. MELIUS: Just talk about it, I mean 


otherwise it’s going to be --


DR. NETON: Agreed. 


DR. MELIUS: -- difficult to --


DR. NETON: Usually we have a PowerPoint 


presentation at these worker outreach 


meetings, and we’ll make sure that when this 


is blown up, it can be read. 


MS. MUNN: Gen, this is what the building 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

76 

looked like. 


DR. ROESSLER: Yeah, I saw, but even so --


MS. MUNN: Yeah, it really wasn’t a large 


and complex building. 


But if it’s possible for us to have 


those questions in written form and a hard 


copy of the process that’s available for the 


people preferably prior to the meeting or at 


least first thing early in the meeting so they 


have a chance to look at it. 


DR. MAURO: Any possibility that prior to 


the meeting whoever the counterpart is who 


represents the workers, a discussion could be 


held about what we’re trying to accomplish. 


Maybe they could help us craft the questions 


in a way that might be more -- I don’t know if 


we have that kind of relationship. 


DR. NETON: Yeah, I don’t know, John. I’m 


not sure that we do have a contact at Blockson 


like we have at other plants. We’ll check 


into that though. If we do, it’s certainly a 


good idea. 


DR. MELIUS: There’s an international union 


contact who happens to be in Cincinnati. I 


think he’s on vacation this week. But he’s 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

77 

been in touch with Vern McDougall*. It’s John 


Morowitz*. He used to work at NIOSH. They’ve 


gotten involved recently. So I talked to him 


a few months ago. He called me up about the 


process and our process. How we handle things 


and what was going on there. So John may be 


able to track down, help you track down ahead 


of time who would be a good contact and so 


forth. And I thought when we were in that 


meeting, I thought there were some of the 


former union --


MS. MUNN: Mark Lewis might know those kinds 


of people. 


DR. ROESSLER: Well, in the minutes that I 


was just looking at one of the key players was 


Mark Lewis. He said he was formerly with the 


union. The union was then disbanded. But it 


occurred to me, I haven’t read through all the 


minutes, but he was sort of organizing the 


people there. 


DR. MELIUS: It’s a different union though. 


This, the International Chemical Workers, I 


think, represented Blockson. 


DR. ROESSLER: But he seemed to be the one 


who was organizing the workers and --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

78 

DR. MELIUS: Yeah, he did. I don’t know 


about his, Mark’s, continued involvement 


because I don’t think -- is he still involved? 


I don’t think so. Vern McDougall’s the, NIOSH 


has redone their outreach component, and Vern 


McDougall, who had worked with Mark on this 


before, but Vern is now doing it. And Vern 


was the one that had reached out to John 


Morowitz. 


DR. NETON: Right. 


MR. TOMES: He had told me he had gotten 


contacts with the union. 


DR. MELIUS: Okay, but Morowitz is right 


here in Cincinnati. 


DR. NETON: We’ll work through that and see 


what we can do with that; it’s a good idea. 


We just need to see if we can accomplish this 


in the few weeks we have before the September 


12th meeting. 


DR. MELIUS: At the time I talked to him I 


don’t know if he’s on Laurie’s contact list or 


not. 


MS. MUNN: So, Jim, you can identify, 


attempt to identify that contact and see if we 


can get those two items in their hands, the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

79 

picture of the flowchart and the three 


specific questions? 


MR. GIBSON (by Telephone): I want to just 


go on record here that kind of this is a 


different perspective but as far as the 


chairing the worker outreach working group, 


I’ll be attending the meeting just to see how 


these meetings go, but I don’t really recall 


having these outreach meetings to where 


workers are somewhat compelled or limited in 


their responses or in their input. 


MS. MUNN: They won’t be here either. 


MR. GIBSON (by Telephone): I understand 


we’re asking them for any specific information 


they may have, but I would have a concern if 


it’s limited to that. 


MS. MUNN: No, there is no intent to limit 


it. Au contrare, but the earlier, the two 


earlier meetings at Blockson were really wide 


open and very informative. People talked 


about whatever they wanted to talk about and 


that will continue to be the case I’m sure. 


It’s just that without specific issues to be 


addressed, it’s difficult for people 


themselves to focus in what is now a major 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

80 

issue. This is an attempt to make sure that 


in the process of their telling their stories, 


hopefully, someone has some answers to these 


questions, too. 


MR. GIBSON (by Telephone): Specific but not 


limited to. 


MS. MUNN: Correct. 


DR. NETON: The focus of this meeting was 


originally going to be to discuss the revision 


to the site profile which we took a lot of 


their comments and incorporated and made 


significant revisions to the profile and so 


sort of roll that out for them and get 


feedback on the general content of the site 


profile. But like Wanda said, while we’re 


there it certainly behooves us to at least try 


to focus on these issues that will help us 


resolve the SEC part of it. 


MS. MUNN: When we held the earlier 


meetings, I don’t think we really knew exactly 


what we wanted to know. We just wanted as 


much information as we could get. And we 


still want as much information as we can get, 


but we specifically want answers to these 


questions because that’s what’s keeping this 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

81 

work group from coming to a conclusion. And 


we do want to get this off the table as early 


as possible. 


DR. ROESSLER: Speaking of getting it off 


the table, what do you see would be the 


sequence of events after the outreach meeting? 


Will we need to have a work group come back 


together again to then finally resolve what 


still seems to be a question? 


MS. MUNN: It would be my hope that we could 


do that possibly at the October meeting. I’m 


not certain. A part of it depends on how much 


shakes out of the worker meetings. It also 


depends on what that timeframe is for other 


people for other items on our agenda. We have 


a pretty heavy agenda in October. 


 DR. WADE: So when you’re going to be able 


to review the minutes of that meeting. The 


meeting’s on September 12th . When would you 


normally expect to have the minutes available, 


the transcript available? 


DR. NETON: I don’t think it’s going to be a 


transcript. I think it will be minutes. We 


should have that available for our own use 


within a week or so after that. There may be 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

82 

some time delay for the redacted version to 


appear, but we could use it internally. I 


would think that we should be able -- and I 


want to speak to Tom because he’s the one, the 


technical lead on this -- put together a white 


paper or a position paper outlining much of 


what we discussed earlier and incorporating 


what we learn at the meeting and just outline 


our position, where we are at that point. And 


then provide it to the working group for 


further discussion. That should be able to 


happen I would think towards the mid to end of 


September. Well, probably the end of 


September if the working group meeting’s on 


the 12th . 


 DR. WADE: And the Board is meeting on 


October 4th, 5th and 6th in Blockson country. 


MS. MUNN: In Blockson country, yes. 


DR. NETON: It sounds late to have that 


produced, but I do think this is one of the 


only issues that we have on the table. And I 


don’t envision this report being more than 


under ten pages probably. I mean, it’s just 


going to outline sort of the weight of the 


evidence we have on where we believe this 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

83 

thorium may or may not have concentrated. How 


firmly we can state that. 


MS. MUNN: As I see it this is the single 


outstanding item which this group needs to 


make a recommendation to the full Board. 


DR. NETON: I believe that’s true. 


MS. MUNN: And if we can, in fact, do that 


prior to the October meeting, it would be most 


helpful for everyone if we can -- think we can 


do that, Tom? 


MR. TOMES: Okay. 


DR. MELIUS: That may be, but I will go on 


record that I would be opposed to any final 


action on this unless we’ve given adequate 


time for the petitioners to review the 


information and have it accessible to them. 


And frankly, the track record of getting 


things through Privacy Act review and so forth 


has not been good. So I really think we’re, 


it would be a mistake to try to think that we 


can complete this at the October meeting. 


Again, it may depend on what the 


findings are or something like that. I mean, 


whatever, probably can’t be by September 12th , 


but to me I don’t see where that’s going to 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

84 

work out. And I think we have to be, have a 


process that’s fair, open and transparent. 


And we’ve not been doing that recently with a 


number of these sites, and I think enough is 


enough and let’s be realistic about what we 


can accomplish within the timeframe. 


MS. MUNN: What can you recommend, Jim? 


What would your recommendation be? 


DR. MELIUS: Well, my recommendation is I 


think we’re going to end up doing another work 


group meeting, and maybe that can be done at 


the October meeting in conjunction with that. 


But I don’t think we’re going to be ready, and 


we’ll have fully shared all the information in 


time for a decision by the Board at the 


October meeting. 


MS. MUNN: Well, I’m not suggesting 


necessarily a decision by the Board. I just 


want to be able to lay before the Board any 


very thorough list of outstanding items that 


we have. And in my mind I see this one as 


being the current issue, and a single current 


issue. If you have a recommendation for how 


to proceed, we’re open to hear it. 


DR. MELIUS: I’m fine with what you just 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

85 

said. We should update the Board, and we do 


it at every meeting, but --


MS. MUNN: Well, I’m concerned about your 


concern relative to adequate notification of 


the SEC and worker groups. How would you like 


us to proceed in that regard? 


DR. MELIUS: I don’t think that’s going to 


be possible to do in time to resolve this 


issue by the Board, a final conclusion 


presented to the Board at the October meeting. 


MS. MUNN: So I’m asking for your proposal. 


What then do you propose? 


DR. MELIUS: That it not be done until a 


meeting after the October meeting. 


 DR. WADE: Well, I think we would serve the 


public well if at the October meeting we could 


daylight everything that we have. Let them 


know what the issues are, what the work group 


has done, what’s available. Make sure that 


all of that is before the public to the degree 


it can put before the public with the 


expectation being that the Board will need to 


chew on that awhile. And also, there might be 


time for the petitioners and others to react 


to that with the vote likely coming at the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

86 

January meeting. 


MS. MUNN: Is it possible that we could do 


that, take care of the final vote during our 


December call? We have a December call 


scheduled. Is there any problem with doing it 


at that time? 


 DR. WADE: It’s possible. I think when the 


Board is going to vote on an SEC petition that 


has history and issues, I think sometimes it’s 


best to do that when the Board is face-to-face 


and can really thrash through things, and so I 


would, from my perspective, if it’s the 


difference between December and January, I’d 


rather see it face-to-face in January. 


MS. MUNN: Jim? 


DR. MELIUS: January in Chicago sounds 


wonderful. 


MS. MUNN: That’s, we’re going to Chicago 


but not repeatedly, I hope. There are a 


couple of hundred other sites that we need to 


be concerned with. 


 DR. WADE: Well, if you think about facing 


the people at Blockson in October with a 


complete discussion and disclosure of issues, 


and where we stand, and documents that are or 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

87 

soon will be available, I think we serve what 


Jim is telling us what we need to serve. And 


that is the interests of the petitioners and 


claimants. Give them an opportunity to hear 


and to comment there or subsequent to that 


with an expectation with a Board vote in 


January. I think that’s doing the public’s 


business well it seems to me. 


MS. MUNN: Agreed? 


(no audible responses) 


MS. MUNN: I’m seeing a nod of the head. I 


don’t know whether it’s to me or not, but I 


see a nod of the head. 


 DR. WADE: And Jim also makes -- a lesson we 


need to learn, it’s like my mother always used 


to say, your eyes are bigger than your 


stomach. We take on more than we’re able to 


do, and if this meeting is going to happen on 


September 12th, having a redacted version 


before the petitioners in time is going to be 


tough. And that’s just life. I mean, we can 


try, but we’ve tried and failed before. And I 


think we need to learn from our past failures. 


MS. MUNN: So we will make as much of a 


presentation as is possible without the actual 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

88 

redacted --


 DR. WADE: I would love to have the redacted 


version available when you meet in October, 


but I’m not going to bet the farm on it. I 


think we should push for it. 


DR. NETON: I still think it would be good 


if we could get our position paper formulated 


by the end of September. 


MS. MUNN: It would be very nice. 


DR. NETON: Because then it could be taken 


up for discussion as a working group whenever 


you felt like it. But I agree with Jim. The 


redacted version is important to have. 


 DR. WADE: The work group can meet an hour 


before one evening. They could do it on the 


phone before. I mean, there are options 


available to you for that to have an intimate 


discussion of the work group. We could 


schedule this the third day or the second day 


and meet the evening of the first day. There 


are all kinds of options to that, but we’re 


not going to have our business done with 


everything wrapped up on October 5th . 


DR. ROESSLER: I think I missed something. 


Where are we meeting in October? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

89

 DR. WADE: Chicago. 


MS. MUNN: Naperville. 


DR. ROESSLER: I don’t know how I missed 


that. 


DR. NETON: Are we going to Naperville 


though? 


MS. MUNN: Yes, we’re going to Naperville at 


the request of the work groups and the 


senators. 


DR. MELIUS: Where in Chicago? 


MS. MUNN: Naperville. 


 DR. WADE: I think the same hotel, I think. 


I think that’s a very reasonable plan 


of attack. 


MS. MUNN: We have an understanding where we 


are, right? Then my notes tell me I have only 


one other item. John asked to discuss the 


solubility issues. 


REVIEW OF ACTION ITEMS


 DR. WADE: Should we review the action items 


now on this? 


MS. MUNN: Please do. 


 DR. WADE: First is that NIOSH is going to 


undertake a literature search surrounding the 


issue of the concentration of Thorium-230 in 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

90 

raffinate streams around the complex to get a 


sense of, you know, what a plausible upper 


bound might be and whether what we’re 


proposing, what NIOSH is proposing, makes 


sense relative to that data background. And 


again, obviously, as soon as that can be done 


and shared with the work group the better. 


NIOSH is going to check on a Blockson 


contact to help make the wording of the 


questions understandable that you bring before 


the outreach meeting. And John Morowitz is a 


potential point of contact for that. 


And then we have the outreach meeting 


itself that will take place on September 12th , 


where with no limits to other options, as Mike 


Gibson mentioned, there will be a focused 


request based upon the questions that have 


been prepared. And I think it would be well 


to share those questions with the work group 


in writing before the meeting just so 


everybody has them. 


By my counting noses Mike Gibson’s 


going to be at the outreach meeting 


representing the work group. 


MR. GIBSON (by Telephone): Gen, will you be 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

91 

at the meeting? 


 DR. WADE: Gen will be at the meeting. SC&A 


will be represented, and NIOSH will be 


represented. And we’ll move to share the 


minutes of that meeting, un-redacted, to the 


work group as quickly as possible and get them 


redacted as quickly as possible. The 


possibility of a work group meeting sometime 


before or during the October Board meeting, 


but I’ll put on the agenda for the October 


meeting a full vetting of technical issues 


surrounding Blockson. 


And I’ll do it at a time before the 


last public comment period so that people 


could make public comment on what we’ve said 


and what we’re proposing on Blockson during 


that meeting. And the most likely scenario is 


voting on Blockson in January at a location to 


be determined. 


MS. MUNN: My request would be that we 


schedule our working group meeting at the 


October session for Wednesday evening, 


immediately after the first day. Tuesday is 


going to be well taken up with procedures and 


subcommittee. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

92

 DR. WADE: So Wednesday is the first day --

MS. MUNN: Wednesday is the first day of the 

meeting. 

 DR. WADE: So usually we’ll have a public 

comment period right after the meeting. So 


after that public comment period, 15 minutes 


rest break, and then the work group meets. 


MS. MUNN: And then the work group meets for 


hopefully no more than an hour. 


DR. MELIUS: How about breakfast the next 


morning? I’m probably not going to be there 


Wednesday. I’m sorry. I have another NIOSH 


engagement that day, and I don’t know by the 


time I fly out to Chicago that evening, I’ll 


make it in time. 


MS. MUNN: I will expect you to be chipper. 


DR. MELIUS: In the morning I will --


MS. MUNN: And you gain an hour. 


DR. MELIUS: The last time I flew to Chicago 


I was delayed. I had to give Dr. Howard a 


ride. 


MS. MUNN: So you would prefer Thursday 


breakfast. 


 DR. WADE: Thursday for breakfast. I’ll set 


the starting time of the meeting accordingly. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

93 

MS. MUNN: Good, that would be much 


appreciated. 


DR. ROESSLER: How about eight? 


MS. MUNN: That’s not bad. 


 DR. WADE: Eight for breakfast. Nine-


fifteen the Board meeting, eight o’clock 


breakfast. 


DR. ROESSLER: The way you work us around, 


Wanda, we can finish in an hour. 


MS. MUNN: That just depends on what comes 


back from the group in Blockson. All right, I 


think we know what we’re doing. Fairly sure. 


DR. NETON: One thing Lew that you may have 


left off which maybe you did intentionally was 


to have this position paper out possibly by 


the end of September, the position paper on 


the raffinate issue. We were going to try to 


have that out before the October Board 


meeting. 


DR. MELIUS: Twenty-four hours later SC&A 


will have their --


DR. NETON: That’s true, SC&A does need time 


to -- we’ll try to get it out as soon as 


possible. 


DR. MELIUS: I think to be fair to everybody 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

94 

it’s just I’d rather have everybody do a good 


job and not try to meet an artificial --


DR. NETON: Agreed. 


DR. MELIUS: -- deadline. 


MS. MUNN: Well, in view of the fact that we 


have a significant amount of time following 


the October meeting before we are going to 


make the decision, there should be adequate 


time for an additional paper back if that’s 


necessary from SC&A. And if we’re going to 


require an additional exchange of some sort in 


this work group, we can always convene a 


telephone meeting if that’s going to be 


necessary so that we can be well prepared for 


the December phone call as a final wrap up and 


final presentation in January to the full 


Board. Agreed? 


(no audible response) 


SOLUBILITY ISSUES
 

MS. MUNN: Final topic, John? 


DR. MAURO: The only other non -- I won’t 


call it that, but the other issue that would 


appear to us as being a non-SEC issue has to 


do what are the, in the latest version of the 


site profile, the approach that’s been adopted 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

95 

by NIOSH for doing dose reconstruction is to 


assume that the workers that are handling the 


uranium in the 55 gallon drum, the nature of 


the airborne uranium oxide, the yellowcake, is 


Type M. 


And in the report reference is made in 


the report, the site profile report, the 


latest version, reference is made to some 


citations that established the basis for 


assuming that it’s appropriate to assume that 


this is absorption Type M. We’re not 


disputing that it is or is not Type M. But 


when we looked into the literature behind it, 


it was equivocal. That is we really, we’re 


not, it did not make a case that, in fact, it 


is Type M. 


And the reason we consider that to be 


important is depending on the cancer type as 


we all know, depending on whether you assume 


it’s Type M or Type S could make a big 


difference in the dose reconstruction. So on 


that basis we raised the question that it 


appears that a little bit more evidence for 


why Type M is, in fact, the appropriate 


assumption in this particular case. Because 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

96 

as you may know, in other places, AWE sites, 


when we were in this situation working with 


yellowcake or an oxide of uranium, the way in 


which the protocol followed was the dose 


reconstructor was instructed to assume the 


worst type, whether it’s S or M, depending on 


the organ of concern. 


In this particular exposure matrix the 


instructions are to use Type M only. And we 


raise the question based on looking at the 


literature behind it, it doesn’t appear that 


the evidence is overwhelming that that’s, in 


fact, the case. And I guess that’s as far as 


we’ve interpreted it. 


MR. TOMES: The one reference that it is 


incorrect. The DOE standard, it’s changed 


since the last, you know, and I looked up the 


comments, and in fact, the new version does 


call it Y instead of W in their terminology. 


But that was not really the foundation and 


basis for why we think it’s M. 


I’ve got three references just to try 


to get a handle on the compound that’s 


actually produced. I’ve got my first one here 


is a Fernald document because Fernald was 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

97 

actually in the later years of their, of 


Blockson’s operation was actually receiving 


materials. And I got a document from them 


that called this a uranile phosphate. 


And I also have some documentation 


from the research chemist at Blockson who 


wrote the publications that we, that you and I 


both reviewed. They indicate the cause is 


sodium diuranate. And I also have some 


documentation from one of the AE officials who 


was actually present and assisting Blockson. 


They called it a sodium uranile phosphate 


chemical. 


So there seems -- and it was a 


phosphate factory so there was some type of 


phosphate, uranium phosphate compound being 


produced there. And there’s no indication 


that there was any of the, highly insoluble 


uranium compounds present in that material 


such as U-02, high-fired material, just 


yellowcake which is a general term applied to 


all those types of materials. It’s a general 


terminology. 


And the term U-308 was just used in 


the TBD because that is what the DOE required 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

98 

the mass to be reported as, U-308, regardless 


of what the compound was. And so we do have 


one option in the TBD for Type S material, and 


that is in the, we have actually two options 


for internal dose in the TBD that use the one 


that’s most bounding because we have an option 


there in Building 55 workers. 


In our review of other literature and 


some of the data from Blockson outside of 


Building 55, we wanted to be sure that we were 


not underestimating those workers who may not 


have been in Building 55. And so we have a 


default intake for calcining operations. 


It was assumed to be the highest, and 


that is obviously some higher-fired material. 


And it’s unprocessed, but before it’s been 


oxidized and everything. So we’re assuming 


that either one could have happened on that 


stuff. So there’s a Type S or a Type M, and 


you simply just choose the option for a worker 


who would give you maximum dose. 


DR. MAURO: So let me see if I understand 


it. So you’re saying in that portion of the 


operation where you’re working with the 


uranium ore that has undergone calcining, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

99 

which could create an oxide of uranium which 


is Type S, the dose reconstructor would at 


that point use the limiting chemical form? 


MR. TOMES: That’s right. 


DR. MAURO: However, in that portion of the 


operation in Building 55 where they were 


working with the uranium oxide of some form, 


whatever the form it was which sounds like it 


wasn’t necessarily the U-308 that we all know 


and love, but it had its own chemistry. 


There’s lots of evidence that that, in fact, 


was Type M. I guess the only suggestion I 


would have is that the site profile would do 


well to tell that story. 


MR. TOMES: It’s better to be more specific. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, otherwise, yeah, that was 


our only concern because we didn’t see that 


with the story you just told in the site 


profile. 


DR. NETON: Tom did a good job. The whole 


history of yellowcake is all kinds of 


misnomers go around the DOE complex on what 


really constitutes yellowcake. Yellowcake 


could be any of ten different chemical forms 


even among themselves. And U-308 compounds we 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

100 

just learned the new ICRP document on 


interpretation of bioassay data has reversed 


their opinion and is now calling U-308, M. 


Yeah, it’s going back to M. It’s not released 


yet. It’s not official. We have a draft copy 


of it. They’re going back to M. And you 


correctly pointed out that it’s related to 


temperature formation and this particular 


material, even if it were U-308, was not 


created at a high temperature. When they say 


high fired, they mean like in a blast furnace, 


in a bomb, not an atomic bomb, but those bombs 


where they actually made the uranium in the 


compounds. This was just dried overnight. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, once you move out of the 


calcining then you hit it and the chemistry 


starts, that’s behind you now. So the fact 


that the original ore may have been calcined 


and had the effect of creating a Type S, then 


but once you go into chemistry you’re saying, 


and you’re moving through the monosodium 


phosphate, the precipitation, then the 


calcining really doesn’t have a role anymore. 


I mean, you’ve left that realm. And the 


chemical form that’s coming out now in this 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

101 

process, you’re saying there’s evidence that 


that’s, that stuff is, in fact, Type M. 


DR. NETON: Yes. 


DR. MAURO: As I said, I believe that, just 


that your citations don’t go toward that. 


DR. NETON: Good point. 


Interestingly the (unintelligible) out 


of Wes Bolch’s group at the University of 


Florida actually did some solubility 


characterizations very recently. It just came 


out in Aerosol Science and Technology, 2006, 


and they even felt that the raw materials 


themselves were actually more like Type M for 


the uranium compound. They did some pretty 


interesting in situ in vitro solubility 


studies, and it was almost M, a little bit S-


looking, but it was almost more characteristic 


of resembling a Type M material. It’s a very 


interesting piece of work. 


DR. ROESSLER: What was that in? 


DR. NETON: Aerosol Science and Technology, 


2006, “Characterization of Radioactive Aerosol 


in Florida Phosphate Processing Facilities”. 


So they sampled the various processing 


applications in phosphates, and they didn’t 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

102 

see any evidence of S. And this is the raw 


rock. This is not the fluffy, flocculent 


material that came out of the --


DR. MAURO: But before calcining. 


DR. NETON: No, this is after calcining. 


But the only thing that was slightly different 


in Blockson was Tom mentioned they increased 


their calcining temperature to make sure that 


the organic materials were fully oxidized 


because that would hinder the chemical 


recovery of uranium. 


DR. MAURO: Now as far as this issue now I 


realize that this meeting, I guess, is mainly 


concerned with the SEC aspects of this 


question. The degree to which we could put 


this issue to bed by let’s say providing this 


material or whatever is necessary on the O 


drive, we can take a look at, that would go 


toward more what I would call the site profile 


aspect of it, and we can take a look at that 


and act on that also if that’s what the Board 


or work group would like us to do beside 


review the white paper or do you want to keep 


this separate? 


MS. MUNN: There’s no reason to keep it 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

103 

separate. These are all issues that have to 


be resolved at one point or another. And if 


this can be resolved in any truly 


comprehensive way so that we can wrap this 


issue up with a ribbon and not have it arise 


again at a later time, it would be beneficial 


to do so. What the best route for doing that 


is, is questionable to me. 


I’m not certain whether it’s 


appropriate to provide a page update for the 


site profile or whether it’s an issue to be 


negotiated in the NIOSH/SC&A realm. My 


instinct would be to include it in the 


permanent record which would mean ostensibly 


an update to the site profile. But if that is 


too far outside of our normal process, what 


does that involve? 


DR. NETON: Well, typically with the site 


profile issues we have sort of a give and take 


going back and forth on the issue. I would 


prefer that we would do it prior to closing 


out, revising the site profile. I mean, this 


is very much the way we worked Blockson 


Chemical, I mean, Bethlehem Steel. We took 


all the issues, and we sort of hashed them out 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

104 

among ourselves and came to a consensus 


opinion on all of them, and then we revise it. 


MS. MUNN: Can Tom give us a white paper of 


response to inquiry to SC&A? Something in 


writing that we can place in the record. 


DR. NETON: I think he could. The only 


caveat is that I think that the thorium issue 


takes top priority. 


MS. MUNN: Oh, I agree. 


DR. NETON: We’ll get that done, and this 


would be a second tier issue. 


MS. MUNN: Second tier thing. 


DR. NETON: And if it can all be 


accomplished at the same time, that’s well and 


good, but right now we will commit to having 


this Thorium-230 issue summarized and then as 


soon as we can get to the solubility we will. 


And it may be at the same time, but I can’t, I 


don’t know that we can guarantee that. 


MS. MUNN: It would not seem that it would 


be an extensive effort to just put together a 


couple of paragraphs and the citations. 


DR. NETON: Well, we like to do it right 


because we know the scrutiny under which this 


thing would be evaluated. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

105 

MS. MUNN: And you’re correct. So we’ll do 

that if we can at the same time. If we can’t, 

as soon after there as possible. 

Are there any other questions, issues? 


DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I have one question, 


initially, for John Mauro. 


It wasn’t clear to me in reading your 


original review which goes back to January, 


you may not remember it, and then your 


subsequent to a more focused review, to what 


extent you looked at the issue of how robust 


the dataset was for the uranium. 


DR. MAURO: You know, I would have to go 


back. My recollection is that we hadn’t set 


an issue. The degree to which we accepted on 


face value the measurements, you’re correct. 


I’d have to go take a look and see how far did 


we go. 


DR. MELIUS: In your report you looked at 


it, but then actually got into the issue of 


the solubility and so forth. It sort of 


hinges –- and comment on that, and you didn’t 


really comment that I could find. I just 


looked again on that issue. I think, NIOSH, 


you commented on that. I mean, you pulled up 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

106 

their individual records and looked at that 


and so forth. You don’t need to do anything 


now. I mean, I don’t want to hold up, but I 


would just like to --


DR. NETON: My recollection is those where 


EML HASL measurements which were vetted before 


the chemical processing. 


DR. MAURO: I think I remember now. There 


was a certain, like a 121 measurements. We 


only found -- I might be crossing wires, but I 


think we only saw 60-something of the 


measurements. In other words we didn’t see 


them all at the time we did our review. And 


we looked at the individual measurements and 


saw the range of values and what was done. 


And then we looked at your report 


where you had more values. But the range that 


we found in the data captured the same range. 


Then subsequently you folks did provide us 


with a full set, and we did look at the full 


set. So I think that -- it’s coming back --


we did take a pretty good look at that. 


DR. MELIUS: And then my subsidiary question 


would be given the expansion of the area 


covered by the review, does that change your 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 -- 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

107 

view of the, you know, I was going to say how 


robust that dataset is in terms of 


characterizing exposures. Because that I 


don’t think you commented on. While, again, 


it may be fine, I just wanted to raise the 


issue now rather than later. 


DR. MAURO: So in other words in light of 


the new scope, 40 years is captured, does that 


change the inflection of all this? 


DR. MELIUS: Right. 


MS. MUNN: John, can you respond to that? 


DR. MELIUS: If you commented on it before, 


I mean, 110 dose reconstructions have been 


done, most of those for people outside the 


scope of the SEC. 


DR. NETON: Right, but we did take, to use a 


word, surrogate data at that point, and we 


took the highest 50 milligram per cubic meter 


dust loading from the calcining operation, and 


DR. MAURO: That’s something that we don’t 


have to wait on. In other words we can go 


back, this is not like we’re waiting on this 


new information from you folks. We can go 


back and look at it from that perspective now. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

108 

DR. MELIUS: I didn’t see closure on that. 


 DR. WADE: So, John, you’ll provide to the 


working group, you’ll extract from your report 


the pertinent issue and provide it as quickly 


as possible. 


DR. MAURO: And as I understand it is look 


at the dataset of the uranium bioassay dataset 


from this new context where there’ll be 40 


years involved the workers in Building 40. 


DR. NETON: That’s true, but we didn’t use 


the uranium bioassay set to reconstruct doses 


in Building 40. We went out and obtained 


Fipper*-type data and took the highest air 


concentrations we could find. I think you 


reviewed it actually. 


DR. MAURO: I know. 


DR. NETON: I mean, the bioassay in Building 


55 is separate. 


DR. MELIUS: My question is mostly for John. 


And since I couldn’t see a record of what they 


reviewed, I didn’t see closure on in our two 


reports on those two issues and didn’t 


understand exactly what they did, the 


documentation, only see part of the dataset, 


not that they had done the whole thing. And I 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

109 

just --


DR. MAURO: I will go back, read that 


section of the report. My guess is I may very 


well give you a call to make sure I understand 


the scope of your concern and then I will look 


at it within that perspective. So I might get 


back to you on that. 


MS. MUNN: Anything else? 


 (no response) 


MS. MUNN: If not, we are adjourned until 


8:00 a.m., October the 4th, in Naperville. 


(Whereupon, the working group adjourned at 


1:35 p.m.) 

______________________________ 

110 

1 CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER 


STATE OF GEORGIA 


COUNTY OF FULTON 


 I, Steven Ray Green, Certified Merit Court 


Reporter, do hereby certify that I reported the 


above and foregoing on the day of August 28, 


2007; and it is a true and accurate transcript 


of the testimony captioned herein. 


 I further certify that I am neither kin 


nor counsel to any of the parties herein, nor 


have any interest in the cause named herein. 


 WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 


6th day of October, 2007. 


STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR 


CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 


CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102